From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753344AbdHQQ5Y (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 17 Aug 2017 12:57:24 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f48.google.com ([74.125.83.48]:34650 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752820AbdHQQ5X (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 17 Aug 2017 12:57:23 -0400
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:57:21 -0700
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
To: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: kbuild-all@01.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tipbuild@zytor.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/build 2/2] kernel/bounds.c:1: error:
 -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 is not between 4 and 12
Message-ID: <20170817165721.GB173745@google.com>
References: <201708172209.HyH5F7Fu%fengguang.wu@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201708172209.HyH5F7Fu%fengguang.wu@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

El Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:13:20PM +0800 kbuild test robot ha dit:

> tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git x86/build
> head:   8f91869766c00622b2eaa8ee567db4f333b78c1a
> commit: 8f91869766c00622b2eaa8ee567db4f333b78c1a [2/2] x86/build: Fix stack alignment for CLang
> config: x86_64-randconfig-b0-08172108 (attached as .config)
> compiler: gcc-4.4 (Debian 4.4.7-8) 4.4.7
> reproduce:
>         git checkout 8f91869766c00622b2eaa8ee567db4f333b78c1a
>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>         make ARCH=x86_64 
> 
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> 
> >> kernel/bounds.c:1: error: -mpreferred-stack-boundary=3 is not between 4 and 12

To be honest I was slightly concerned about not checking the actual
option that is applied, but expected it to be ok.

Though we can't use cc-option directly to chose between the gcc and
the clang option in this case we can use it to make sure only valid
parameters are applied. I'll prepare a fix for the fix.

Matthias